Article 1202

Article 1202. The debtor shall lose the right of choice when among the prestations whereby he is alternatively bound, only one is practicable.

---

Artikulo 1202. Mawawala ang karapatan ng nangutang na mamili kung sa mga alternatibong prestation, isa lamang ang maaring maisakatuparan.

---

When the debtor loses the right of choice the obligation becomes simple. This article applies only when the debtor has the right to choose.

When all of the prestations, except one, have become impossible or unlawful, the debtor loses his right of choice. This is because the obligation loses its alternative character. It becomes a simple obligation.

Example:

Bryan is obliged to give Anne either earrings or a diamond ring or a bracelet. If the earrings and diamond ring are lost by a fortuitous event before choice can be made, Bryan can deliver only the bracelet, because the obligation has become a simple one. If later, the bracelet is also destroyed by a fortuitous event, the obligation is extinguished, and Bryan would not be liable in any way.

Case: 

LEGARDA VS MIAILHE 

G.R. No. L-3435. April 28, 1951.

BAUTISTA ANGELO, J.

Facts:

On June 3, 1944, plaintiffs filed a complaint against the original defendant William J.B. Burke, alleging defendants unjustified refusal to accept payment in discharge of a mortgage indebtedness in his favor, and praying that the latter be order (1) to receive the sum of P75,920.83; (2) to execute the corresponding deed of release of mortgage, and; (3) to pay damages in the sum of P1,000.

The Court then decided in favor of plaintiff Legarda. After the war and the subsequent defeat of the Japanese occupants, defendant filed a case in court claiming that plaintiff Clara de Legarda violated her agreement with defendant, by forcing to deposit worthless Japanese military notes when they originally agreed that the interest was to be condoned until after the occupation and that payment was rendered either in Philippine or English currency. Defendant was later substituted upon death by his heir Miailhe and the Courts judged in defendants favor. Plaintiff now assails said decision.

Issue:

Whether or not the tender of payment by plaintiff is valid.

Ruling:

On February 17, 1943, the only currency available was the Philippine currency, or the Japanese Military notes, because all other currencies, including the English, were outlawed by a proclamation issued by the Japanese Imperial Commander on January 3, 1942. The right to election ceased to exist on the date of plaintiffs payment because it had become legally impossible. And this is so because in alternative obligations there is no right to choose undertakings that are impossible or illegal. In other words, the obligation on the part of the debtor to pay the mortgage indebtedness has since then ceased to be alternative. It appears therefore, that the tender of payment in Japanese Military notes was a valid tender because it was the only currency permissible at the time and its payment was tantamount to payment in Philippine currency. However, payment with the clerk of court did not have any legal effect because it was made in certified check, and a check does not meet the requirements of legal tender. Therefore, her consignation did not have the effect of relieving her from her obligation of the defendant.